A police leader says she is “beyond angry” at Police and Crime Commissioner Martin Surl and claims heforced through a dramatic U-turn on the use of spit hoods in Gloucestershire.

The chairwoman of Gloucestershire Police Federation Sarah Johnson has accused the elected Commissioner of “interfering in operational policing decisions”.

Martin Surl

Gloucestershire police were poised to trial the controversial fine mesh hoods to protect officers from spitting and biting when Mr Surl said he wanted a review of all the options first.

But Ms Johnson said the announcement left her “beyond angry” because the decision left her members vulnerable to becoming victims of a “vile act” which could mean officers not being able to cuddle their children for six months until they got the all clear for disease.

Read More

“Protecting police officers from being spat at is paramount,” she said. “We had an agreement in place in force to begin a trial of spit guards in custody suites.

“And now this had been put on hold following an intervention by Martin Surl. Our members will rightly be asking why he is getting involved in operational policing decisions, which are a matter for the chief constable.

“Police officers will also be left feeling that the Police and Crime Commissioner and the force are basically saying it is ok for people to spit at them.”

Read More

The chair of the Federation which represents rank and file officers said more than half the forces in England and Wales already issue them to officers and Home Secretary Amber Rudd has told police she is in favour.

She wants every officer in Gloucestershire to have one and said: “Spitting at a police officer is horrible but then there is also the potential that – should the spit go in their mouths – there will be sometimes up to a six month programme whereby officers have to be tested and maybe take drugs to make sure that they haven’t contracted a contagious disease.

Police are investigating

“This means that the officers may not be able to be intimate with their family, might not be able to cuddle their children or might not be able to visit ill relatives, so it’s not only the impact on that day, it’s for a long time thereafter.

“A lot of stress and worry comes with that.”

But Mr Surl says he knows first hand how officers sometimes need extra protection because he was punched, kicked, bitten and spat upon during a 30-year-career as a former police officer.

After learning of the Federation's stance, he said: “My job as commissioner is to ask the questions the public expect me to ask of the police and to hold them to account - questions like; 'what’s the criteria for using spit guards? Are you going to use them on children? What about people with mental health conditions? How will it be recorded?' And so on.

New Chief Constable Rod Hansen

“All those kind of questions needed to be asked and the police couldn’t answer them. So I absolutely support the chief constable who decided to defer it for a while, consult the public and other relevant bodies and when we have the answers to those questions, he will make a decision on what happens next - and I think that’s the right way to do it.

"The fact is I have never been asked for my views on spit guards and whilst I understand and know from experience that it’s vile and reprehensible to be spat at and totally unacceptable, some people still don’t seem to understand my role. It is the PCC’s job to act as the voice of the people in police matters and hold the chief constable to account. The chief constable runs the Constabulary not the Police Federation and I totally support him on this”.

Chief Constable Rod Hansen said this is an issue that divides opinion even within the service.

He said: "Some regard them as a necessary and an essential restraint, others see them as impractical and maybe even inflammatory”.

“If we can find a solution that suits everyone – including my officers and staff as well as for suspects, all of whom I have a duty of care towards, then further pause for thought is the right course to take."